610 N.E.2d 1017 | Ohio Ct. App. | 1991
In this appeal we must decide whether a purported custodial bank account was properly forfeited to the state under the Ohio RICO statute. We affirm.
On June 12, 1990, defendant-appellant, Song Keith, was indicted on two counts of promoting prostitution and one count of engaging in a pattern of corrupt activity. Pursuant to R.C.
On November 7, 1990, Keith pleaded guilty to all three counts. As a condition of her plea, Keith agreed to forfeit all of the property described in the corrupt activities lien except for her home in Amherst. Included in the property to be forfeited was a bank account in the name of Keith as custodian for her daughter, Kim Keith.
Through her father and next friend, Daniel Keith, Kim filed a petition pursuant to R.C.
At the hearing on Kim's petition, Kim's counsel argued that the money in the account was a gift from Keith and that it was not generated prior to the pattern of corrupt activities for which Keith was convicted. The trial court denied Kim's petition, deciding that Keith did not comply with the Ohio Transfers to Minors Act (R.C.
"A. The Trial Court erred in determining that the title of Kim Keith's custodial bank account was not created in substantial compliance with the Ohio Transfers to Minors Act, R.C.
"B. The Trial Court erred by failing to presume Kim Keith's custodial account to be a gift and improperly weighed the evidence of the intent to make a gift."
Under R.C.
All the case law we have found agrees that under the Uniform Gifts to Minors Act (predecessor to the Uniform Transfers to Minors Act) there must in fact be a gift. Without donative intent, no gift has been made. See Gordon v. Gordon (1979),
The opening of a bank account pursuant to this Act is prima facie evidence of donative intent. Extrinsic evidence may be introduced to demonstrate contrary intent. Id.; Heath v. Heath
(1986),
The trial court found that, despite the form of the account, Keith did not intend to make a gift of the money contained in the account but rather considered it her own. The record supports this finding.
Keith's actions with respect to the account did not evidence an intention on her part to make an irrevocable gift of the money to Kim. For example, shortly after opening the account, Keith withdrew $20,000 to purchase a piece of commercial property. Keith claimed that this was merely a loan made by herself as custodian to herself as an individual. The trial court did not believe her. By treating the money as her own, Keith's claim of a gift to Kim was drawn into serious doubt.
The trial court also decided that the listing on the signature card did not comply with the requirements of R.C.
The first assignment of error is overruled.
Kim argues that the money in the bank account did not aid Keith in Keith's corrupt activities nor was it a benefit derived from Keith's corrupt activities. However, because Keith agreed to forfeit the account as part of a plea bargain and because Kim had no right, title, or interest in the bank account, we hold that the trial court need not trace the account to Keith's illegal activities. The second assignment of error is overruled.
The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
BAIRD and CACIOPPO, JJ., concur.